Printable View
Why should we care about politics in Europe, last time I checked this was the US. Matter of fact, if memory serves me correct, the settlers that came to Americas wanted to get the f@ck away from Europe....Quote:
Have you ever followed politics in Europe?
And.........the news is now reporting that the picture of Kerry at the rally with Fonda is a fake.Quote:
Originally posted by Schmear
Getting this thread back on topic...
This is the first news report I've seen on this topic from a legitimate source. (There may have been others and I missed them.)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APW...D80OG9380.html
LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!!!
(Oh this is gonna be quite an election year!)
Whoa.........I didn't say you should care. I just asked a question.....but since you're asking.......Quote:
Originally posted by SledNeck
Why should we care about politics in Europe, last time I checked this was the US. Matter of fact, if memory serves me correct, the settlers that came to Americas wanted to get the f@ck away from Europe....
I think we should follow what's going on in the world. Isn't that what Bush did by taking out Saddam? He was paying attention to the world community.
Aren't we working towards a "world community?" We can't do that without understanding one another and understanding goes a long way to ending stress and strife.
Doesn't look like it will be an issue at all. It doesn't look like dems can stomach Dean so Kerry will get the nod w/ whatever baggage he has. I like the stuff about the picture, this is going to get pretty fackin' dirty before its over, then we can chose between two marginal candidates... politics are great.
Disagree, he was doing what he thought was in the best interest for the US, not the world commumnity. He just played stupid politics with the world to bring it to fruition. Lucky for you liberals we dont have a conservative president thats actually a conservative. Bush is a big pussy when it comes to fiscal conservativism. The one thing and only thing I do like, his stance on war. Thus I will vote for him, again.Quote:
I think we should follow what's going on in the world. Isn't that what Bush did by taking out Saddam? He was paying attention to the world community.
Totally - I was high in the Andes mountains (not to be confused with being high WHILE in the Andes mountains ;) ) and the news was reporting it even there.Quote:
Originally posted by 1080Rider
Edit- Re: clinton fiasco
All I know is that it made headlines from here to Bejing, knowing what I know about what sells papers, I don't think they were laughing with us.
PS- KQ, we were in your neck of the woods this weekend. Wife may be gettin' a job out on the peninsula. What's the job market lookn' like in our field over there. I'm not too worried, there's always a sweatshop to work in somewhere I'm sure.
RE: job market - I'd say the greater Seattle area is doing well for your line of work. The peninsula is a whole 'nother story. If you're heading that way I'd try to stay around Gig Harbor and commute if at all possible.
I'm actually considering a change to a computer forensics firm. Who knows......maybe I'll go on the road and campaign for whoever gets the nomination :p
You really are a moron. Take a little time to learn what you are talking about before spitting all over the web.Quote:
Originally posted by 1080Rider
Yeah, I think I've heard of him. Isn't he the guy that pulled our coutry out of double digit inflation, gave us a common focus and got the country back on track to be one of the greatest economies of all time? I think I heard about him. Who was it before him that got us in such trouble, I forget???
The worst recession since the great depression occurred after Reagan took office. Along with high unemployment, poor GDP growth and higher taxes.
Yes, that's right. Reagan cut taxes, the economy refused to rebound. A Republican-lead Senate jacked taxes back up, then the economy started to trickle back to life. And taxes were higher than ever.
Overall, during his 8 years in office, the economy sucked.
Before you spew any more, try to learn what you are talking about.
I think perhaps you're not "reading" what I wrote.Quote:
Originally posted by SledNeck
Disagree, he was doing what he thought was in the best interest for the US, not the world commumnity. He just played stupid politics with the world to bring it to fruition. Lucky for you liberals we dont have a conservative president thats actually a conservative. Bush is a big pussy when it comes to fiscal conservativism. The one thing and only thing I do like, his stance on war. Thus I will vote for him, again.
What Bush did - taking Saddam out - may have been for the benefit of the US but he was paying attention to what was happening in the world. If he hadn't been Saddam would not have been on his radar.
My statement is very basic - let me make it simpler. He was looking outside the geographic confines of the United States at outside influences.
P.S. Please don't label me.
Word - I was laid off twice in the 80's. Partners in my firm were foregoing paychecks to pay the staff - things were bad in Seatown.Quote:
Originally posted by grrrr
The worst recession since the great depression occurred after Reagan took office. Along with high unemployment, poor GDP growth and higher taxes.
Dude, are you high??? I don't know how old you are but I recall the lines of unemployed in the late 70's and the double digit interest rates. You couldn't even purchase a house during that time. Again, I feel sorry for you that you need to call people names who don't share your pipe dreams. Whatever, Clinton was the best, Carter was better than him and Hillary will be your next candidate to lead us to the dream of equality amongst the less fortunate.Quote:
Originally posted by grrrr
You really are a moron. Take a little time to learn what you are talking about before spitting all over the web.
The worst recession since the great depression occurred after Reagan took office. Along with high unemployment, poor GDP growth and higher taxes.
Yes, that's right. Reagan cut taxes, the economy refused to rebound. A Republican-lead Senate jacked taxes back up, then the economy started to trickle back to life. And taxes were higher than ever.
Overall, during his 8 years in office, the economy sucked.
Before you spew any more, try to learn what you are talking about.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Viva
[B]Sir, you are correct, communism can never work. Wanna know why? Because there will always be corrupt and inherently evil individuals willing to compromise the system for their own personal gain. ;)
I really really do hope that this was written in jest, as the winking face implies.
But, Viva's true position aside, I might as well take up the issue, since some people really believe this.
So communism is good, it's just that people are bad.
As someone who did live in a communist country, and not by choice, until communism was toppled, I can say that you are extremely wrong. (Please don't tell me there was no truly communist country).
What is true is that communism creates very evil people.
Allright, I apologize for calling you a moron, but you are still wrong. Yes, I was there.Quote:
Originally posted by 1080Rider
Dude, are you high??? I don't know how old you are but I recall the lines of unemployed in the late 70's and the double digit interest rates. You couldn't even purchase a house during that time. Again, I feel sorry for you that you need to call people names who don't share your pipe dreams. Whatever, Clinton was the best, Carter was better than him and Hillary will be your next candidate to lead us to the dream of equality amongst the less fortunate.
But the facts stand. Unemployment was higher under Reagan than under Carter, and the recession occurred after Reagan took office. And taxes were higher when Reagan left office than when he entered. And the GDP grew more slowly than under JFK, LBJ or Clinton.
Skip the rest of the bullshit too. I didn't vote for Carter or Clinton, and I don't agree with social engineering, so don't put words in my mouth.
Unfortunately, Bush is repeating Reagan's mistakes - cutting taxes and running up a deficit. It will have to be paid back, which means taxes will have to go back up. My number one complaint with Bush is the way he is allowing spending to go out of control.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by horizon
[B]There never has been a truly communist country. Marxist/Leninism/Stalinism is not true communism, neither is Maoism. Communism itself is an ideal that can only be practical on a small scale - i.e. a COMMUNE, where truly everyone is equal. Otherwise I'm with Viva(-ism). It's human nature that some pigs end up more equal than others. (Gotta love the State Farm shout-out-ism!)Quote:
Originally posted by Viva
Sir, you are correct, communism can never work. Wanna know why? Because there will always be corrupt and inherently evil individuals willing to compromise the system for their own personal gain. ;)
I really really do hope that this was written in jest, as the winking face implies.
But, Viva's true position aside, I might as well take up the issue, since some people really believe this.
So communism is good, it's just that people are bad.
As someone who did live in a communist country, and not by choice, until communism was toppled, I can say that you are extremely wrong. (Please don't tell me there was no truly communist country).
What is true is that communism creates very evil people.
My -ism key seems to be stuck... ;)
Pinch me, it cant be, I actually agree.....Quote:
My number one complaint with Bush is the way he is allowing spending to go out of control.
uh, about reagan's problemos i was referring to the central americas in the 80's...
I'm sorry. I can't recall that at all.Quote:
Originally posted by bigAK
uh, about reagan's problemos i was referring to the central americas in the 80's...
Communism Sucks!Quote:
Originally posted by Viva
Sir, you are correct, communism can never work. Wanna know why? Because there will always be corrupt and inherently evil individuals willing to compromise the system for their own personal gain. ;)
Also, the studies you lambaste as a waste of money really do provide useful information. Such studies are necessary to learn about ourselves as well as the world and universe we occupy. It's called evolving- in this case for the better. What's your alternative... Just say no!?
My number one problem w/ bush is the shit he and ascraft are doing, it is a sin. They're trampeling the constitution. I don't advocate deficits either. I would like to see controlled spending through smaller gov't (Bush is not the example of this). I'm prolly a libertarian by label so I never will see a candidate that espouses my beliefs.Quote:
Originally posted by grrrr
Allright, I apologize for calling you a moron, but you are still wrong. Yes, I was there.
But the facts stand. Unemployment was higher under Reagan than under Carter, and the recession occurred after Reagan took office. And taxes were higher when Reagan left office than when he entered. And the GDP grew more slowly than under JFK, LBJ or Clinton.
Skip the rest of the bullshit too. I didn't vote for Carter or Clinton, and I don't agree with social engineering, so don't put words in my mouth.
Unfortunately, Bush is repeating Reagan's mistakes - cutting taxes and running up a deficit. It will have to be paid back, which means taxes will have to go back up. My number one complaint with Bush is the way he is allowing spending to go out of control.
I think presidental terms are like car accidents. Two people can watch them and have a different recounting of facts afterwards. All I know is that my family as well as everyone I know was better off in 1988 than they were in 1980. I think you would agree that, as a whole, the country was in a better spot at the end of Reagan's term.
Quote:
Originally posted by grrrr
I'm sorry. I can't recall that at all.
some guatemalan reading material then
edit, immoral noodlings in el salvadoran and nicaraguan governments/populations as well...
I REALLY didn't think that one needed a "winky".Quote:
Originally posted by bigAK
some guatemalan reading material then
edit, immoral noodlings in el salvadoran and nicaraguan governments/populations as well...
convictions...ummh yeah. Kerry's gone more ways than Elton John in a reach around contest.Quote:
Originally posted by grrrr
I'm not a Kerry supporter, and I'm not a democrat. I don't agree with many of his decisions since the war, but in comparison with Bush, I will vote for him.
He stood up for his convictions, and he stood up against the machinery that sent us into that ill-conceived and ill-fated mission. As did many more on the inside, usually quietly. Including my father, who was at the time a major, a career officer and a cold warrior.
. [/B]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Feb13.html
dammit i suck. ah well...Quote:
Originally posted by grrrr
I REALLY didn't think that one needed a "winky".
Password?Quote:
The 1st 28 Questions For KerryQuote:
Originally posted by mr_gyptian
convictions...ummh yeah. Kerry's gone more ways than Elton John in a reach around contest.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Feb13.html
By George F. Will
Sunday, February 15, 2004; Page B07
In the more than 250 days until Nov. 2, John Kerry can answer questions that linger despite, or because of, all he has said so far. Such as:
Other than denoting your disapproval, what does the adjective mean in the phrase "special interest"? Is the National Education Association a special interest? The AFL-CIO?
You abhor "special tax giveaways for the privileged and special interests." When supporting billions in ethanol subsidies, mostly for agribusinesses, did you think about corn-growing, caucus-holding Iowa?
Is the National Rifle Association a "special interest"? Is "special" a synonym for "conservative"?
When you denounce "lobbyists" do you include those for Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club? Is "liberal lobbyist" an oxymoron?
All the Americans affected by laws you pass -- that is, all Americans -- refuse to pipe down and mind their own business so that you can mind their business for them. Often they hire lobbyists to exercise their First Amendment right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." Can you despise lobbyists without disparaging that right?
You say the rich do not pay enough taxes. In 1979 the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough?
You say the federal government is not spending enough on education. President Bush has increased education spending 48 percent. How much is enough?
In January 1991, after Iraq extinguished Kuwait's sovereignty, you opposed responding with force rather than economic sanctions. Have such sanctions ever undone such aggression?
On Jan. 11, 1991, you said that going to war was abandoning "the theory of deterrence." Was it not a tad late to deter Iraqi aggression?
The next day you said, "I do not believe our nation is prepared for war." How did unpreparedness subsequently manifest itself?
On Jan. 22, 1991, responding to a constituent opposed to the Persian Gulf War, you wrote "I share your concerns" and would have given sanctions more time. Nine days later, responding to a voter who favored the war, you wrote, "I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis." Did you have a third position?
You say the Bush administration questions "the patriotism" of its critics. You say that as president you will "appoint a U.S. trade representative who is an American patriot." You mean the current representative, Robert Zoellick, is not a patriot?
You strongly praise former Treasury secretary Bob Rubin, who strongly supports NAFTA and free trade. Have you changed your mind about him or about free trade (as you have changed your mind about the No Child Left Behind Act, the 2002 war resolution, the Patriot Act, etc.)?
You oppose immediate termination of U.S. involvement in Iraq, and you opposed the $87 billion to pay for involvement. Come again?
In 1994, the year after the first attack on the World Trade Center, you voted to cut $1 billion from counterterrorism activities. In 1995 you proposed a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding. Are you now glad that both proposals were defeated?
You favor civil unions but not same-sex marriage. What is the difference? What consequences of gay marriage worry you? Your state's highest court says marriage is "an evolving paradigm." Do you agree? You say you agree with what Dick Cheney said in 2000: States should have a right to "come to different conclusions" about same-sex marriage. Why, then, were you one of only 14 senators who opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects that right? Massachusetts opponents of the same-sex ruling are moving for a referendum to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. How will you vote?
You favor full disclosure of political spending. Organized labor is fighting new regulations requiring full disclosure to union members of the political uses of their mandatory union dues. As president, would you rescind these regulations?
Praising McCain-Feingold restrictions on political contributions, you said: "This bill reduces the power of the checkbook, and I will therefore support it." In December you saved your sagging campaign by writing it a $6.4 million check. Why is your checkbook's unfettered freedom wholesome?
You deny that restricting campaign contributions restricts speech. How much of the $6.4 million did you spend on speech -- in the form of broadcast messages?
Billionaire George Soros says he will spend whatever is necessary to defeat President Bush. As one who believes -- well, who says -- there is "too much money" in politics, are you appalled?
There are 28 more questions where these 28 came from.
I guess my point was that communism was undermined, in part, by the self-serving people who managed to work, ass-kiss, and murder their way to the top, although the exact method is irrelevant to this discussion. What those people did having achieved power bears similarities to our current executive administration, hence the "winky".
Horizon, I never stated the communism was good, nor have I ever advocated a particular form of government here.
Out of curiosity, from which country are you? My parents are from Romania (father was a WWII POW and mother was a refuge) and I have countless dozens of friends, acquaintences, collaborators, a couple of enemies, and even a few girlfriends (Russian chicks are sketch) from the former Soviet bloc.
your ignorance is disturbing ! Please do not breed.Quote:
Originally posted by SledNeck
Why should we care about politics in Europe, last time I checked this was the US. Matter of fact, if memory serves me correct, the settlers that came to Americas wanted to get the f@ck away from Europe....
I love burrito's!
You care to elaborate why my statement makes me "ignorant"?Quote:
Originally posted by board
your ignorance is disturbing ! Please do not breed.
It is your opinion that I am "ignorant", your entitled to stink, so am I....
KQ- you have mail.
Burrito's are for commie pinko's, your a fag for likeing burrito's. I bet you supported Nixon, he loved burrito's. :DQuote:
Originally posted by truth
I love burrito's!
Viva, it did seem to me that your point was subtler than at first sight. This is why I said what I was arguing against may not actually be your position. It's still the position that some people take, and on a thread about politics, I felt entitled to comment. For instance, I don't agree with Tippster. Communism billed itself as a theory by which to organise a society, not a small commune. At least since it started to become fashionable as a political theory. A few people agreeing, for whatever reasons, to share/be equal etc are not a satisfactory model for a society. Just like a family isn't. (And if I refused to see Bush or Blair or Chirac etc as my dad with the right to ground me, I don't think I should be considered evil).
As for the country I'm from, interesting coincidence!;) no pow/refuge parents here, though. I got out after the prison gates were taken down.
The apostraphe S always gives me away...so stupid!;)Quote:
Originally posted by 1080Rider
Burrito's are for commie pinko's, your a fag for likeing burrito's. I bet you supported Nixon, he loved burrito's. :D
No, the records show nothing of the sort. In fact, they confirm a gap of nearly a year, not to mention the mysterious refusal to take a physical, nearly unheard of for an aviator.Quote:
Originally posted by mr_gyptian
dex, for the love of god can we please drop the AWOL shit. The DOD released his records and they again show no base for this accusation.
Quote:
Originally posted by 1080Rider
Again, all you argue is politics.
Huh, I thought that's what we were talking about.
[/B]Quote:
[QB]You don't like the shit a converative president does IN THE LINE OF HIS JOB. This whole thread is about the way a person holds themself as a person and their FITNESS TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT.
So getting a favor from an intern affects one's fitness to serve as president? How 'bout being AWOL from the National Guard that daddy got you into? How 'bout DWI convictions? How 'bout an old coke habit? How about manipulating intelligence and lying to the American public, lawmakers, and the world?I guess those are different.
Quote:
Its funny you call me uneducated on the matter yet can't understand the difference. I know what the fuck I'm talkin' about.
If you say so.
Quote:
What I don't do is cruise the internet for 5 hrs. a day building my house of cards against your party to expose it as a bunch of money grubbing fascists (but that's because I'd just find articles proving that your party are a bunch of panty-waists who want everyone to feel good, do whatever they want whenever they want, balloon the federal govt by making new programs to monitor the stool samples of baby's who were born to crack addicts then another program to study why american society made these poor people take crack, and also articles to prove that most liberals have the morals of a used car salesman). [side note, this just in- Communism doesn't work, when will you liberals understand that] But, you see, I don't waste my time w/ that bullshit. That's why I said I don't pay attention to the news.
Which is also why you're poorly informed and not really fit to argue what you're trying to argue.
Quote:
I'm not supporting bush if he lied to start this war. Like I said EARLIER he gets what he deserves if that's the case. I do think Hussein needed to be taken out but YOUR president was too much of a pussie to do ANYTHING while in office. That asshole sat on the fence so long he's still got a fence post stuck up his ass, or is that a cigar.
Ha, ha. No, Clinton just didn't need to start a war to boost his popularity.
If being American is about being wrong, you're really, really American. Maybe when you start to follow events and understand things you'll be the one who'll figure it out.Quote:
Bottom line, you take to insulting me when I tell you my side, so go blow a goat. You don't like how I think but sooner or later you'll figure it out. Like I've said many times, you're lucky because in America everyone has the right to be wrong.
edit: to fix format
Regarding George Will... *shaking my head*... I can't believe that fucker actually had the nerve to equate the Sierra Club with the Oil Lobby... now that's toeing the party line! 1080 - take note.
Good Boy, George! Now SIT!...Lie down...Roll over... Good Lapdog!
A bumpersticker I saw yesterday sums up my position:
Clinton Lied and Nobody Died
Quote:
Originally posted by Tippster
Regarding George Will... *shaking my head*... I can't believe that fucker actually had the nerve to equate the Sierra Club with the Oil Lobby... now that's toeing the party line! 1080 - take note.
Good Boy, George! Now SIT!...Lie down...Roll over... Good Lapdog!
A bumpersticker I saw yesterday sums up my position:
Clinton Lied and Nobody Died
You're right, the oil lobby has a long history of giving monies to terrorist groups. He was making a point that both are special interests and that disparaging either violates each of the respective group's free speech.
"A bumpersticker I saw yesterday sums up my position"
no comment needed.
Ok. I have a way we can settle all of this. It is the perfect way to choose the next President.
We take GW, and Kerry to Aspen Highlands. Make them hike Highland bowl. And then we judge them on the line they take, fluidity etc. The winner is President.
And just so it stays non baised so the judges can't tell which is who. There will be 10 different fartbags in a box. When they get to the top they pick the fartbag that they will wear with a blindfolded draw(only one person will know who is which skier. John McCain will be incharge of the fartbag box). They will wear identical helmit's (with cam), boots, goggles, gloves, poles, and face mask,. They will just go down as skier 1, and skier2 by another random draw to see who goes first. Winner becomes President. Nes pas:cool:
Is this simple enough for you Dex???
In recent weeks, Turnipseed has found himself in the middle of a battle in which Democrats have called the president a "deserter" who went "AWOL" for an entire year during his time in the Air National Guard. When Democrats made those accusations — amplified by extensive press coverage — the White House was slow to fight back, insisting that the issue, which came up in the 2000 campaign, was closed and did not merit a response. It was only after NBC's Tim Russert brought the story up during a one-hour interview with the president on February 8 that the White House changed course and released records of the president's Guard service.
Those records have not quieted the most determined of the president's enemies — no one who watches the Democratic opposition really believed they would — but they do make a strong case that Bush fulfilled his duties and met the requirements for Air National Guard officers during his service from 1968 to 1973. A look at those records, along with interviews with people who knew Bush at the time, suggests that after all the shouting is over, and some of the basic facts become known, this latest line of attack on the president will come to nothing.
FOUR YEARS OF FLYING
The controversy over Bush's service centers on what his critics call "the period in question," that is, the time from May 1972 until May 1973. What is not mentioned as often is that that period was in fact Bush's fifth year in the Guard, one that followed four years of often intense service.
Bush joined in May 1968. He went through six weeks of basic training — a full-time job — at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Then he underwent 53 weeks of flight training — again, full time — at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Ga. Then he underwent 21 weeks of fighter interceptor training — full time — at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Counting other, shorter, postings in between, by the end of his training period Bush had served two years on active duty.
Certified to fly the F-102 fighter plane, Bush then began a period of frequent — usually weekly — flying. The F-102 was designed to shoot down other fighter planes, and the missions Bush flew were training flights, mostly over the Gulf of Mexico and often at night, in which pilots took turns being the predator and the prey."If you're going to practice how to shoot down another airplane, then you have to have another airplane up there to work on," recalls retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. "He'd be the target for the first half of the mission, and then we'd switch."
During that period Bush's superiors gave him consistently high ratings as a pilot. "Lt. Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer," wrote one in a 1972 evaluation. Another evaluation, in 1971, called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further." And a third rating, in 1970, said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was also "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership."
All that flying involved quite a bit of work. "Being a pilot is more than just a monthly appearance," says Bob Harmon, a former Guard pilot who was a member of Bush's group in 1971 and 1972. "You cannot maintain your currency by doing just one drill a month. He was flying once or twice a week during that time, from May of 1971 until May of 1972." While the work was certainly not as dangerous as fighting in the jungles of Vietnam, it wasn't exactly safe, either. Harmon remembers a half-dozen Texas Air National Guard fliers who died in accidents over the years, in cluding one during the time Bush was flying. "This was not an endeavor without risk," Harmon notes.
THE MOVE TO ALABAMA
The records show that Bush kept up his rigorous schedule of flying through the spring of 1972: He was credited for duty on ten days in March of that year, and seven days in April. Then, as Bush began his fifth year of service in the Guard, he appears to have stepped back dramatically. The records indicate that he received no credit in May, June, July, August, and September 1972. In October, he was credited with two days, and in November he was credited with four. There were no days in December, and then six in January 1973. Then there were no days in February and March.
The change was the result of Bush's decision to go to Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount. With an obligation to the Guard, Bush asked to perform equivalent service in Alabama. That was not an unusual request, given that members of the Guard, like everyone else, often moved around the country. "It was a common thing," recalls Brigadier General Turnipseed. "If we had had a guy in Houston, he could have made equivalent training with Bush's unit. It was so common that the guy who wrote the letter telling Bush to come didn't even tell me about it."
The president's critics have charged that he did not show up for service — was "AWOL" — in Alabama. Bush says he did serve, and his case is supported by records showing that he was paid and given retirement credit for days of service while he was known to be in Alabama. The records also show that Bush received a dental examination on January 6, 1973, at Dannelly Air National Guard base, home of the 187th (January 6 was one of the days that pay records show Bush receiving credit for service). And while a number of Guard members at the base say they do not remember seeing Bush among the roughly 900 men who served there during that time, another member, a retired lieutenant named John Calhoun, says he remembers seeing Bush at the base several times.
What seems most likely is that Bush was indeed at Dannelly, but there was not very much for a non-flying pilot to do. Flying fighter jets involves constant practice and training; Bush had to know when he left Texas that he would no longer be able to engage in either one very often, which meant that he would essentially leave flying, at least for some substantial period of time. In addition, the 187th could not accommodate another pilot, at least regularly. "He was not going to fly," says Turnipseed. "We didn't have enough airplanes or sorties to handle our own pilots, so we wouldn't have done it for some guy passing through."
On the other hand, showing up for drills was still meeting one's responsibility to the Guard. And, as 1973 went along, the evidence suggests that Bush stepped up his work to make up for the time he had missed earlier. In April of that year, he received credit for two days; in May, he received credit for 14 days; in June, five days; and in July, 19 days. That was the last service Bush performed in the Guard. Later that year, he asked for and received permission to leave the Guard early so he could attend Harvard Business School. He was given an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months, and five days of his original six-year commitment.
The records indicate that, despite his move to Alabama, Bush met his obligation to the Guard in the 1972-73 year. At that time, Guardsmen were awarded points based on the days they reported for duty each year. They were given 15 points just for being in the Guard, and were then required to accumulate a total of 50 points to satisfy the annual requirement. In his first four years of service, Bush piled up lots of points; he earned 253 points in his first year, 340 in his second, 137 in his third, and 112 in his fourth. For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968).
Bush then racked up another 56 points in June and July of 1973, which met the minimum requirement for the 1973-74 year, which was Bush's last year of service. Together, the record "clearly shows that First Lieutenant George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both '72-'73 and '73-'74, which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," says retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, a Guard personnel officer who reviewed the records at the request of the White House.
All in all, the documents show that Bush served intensively for four years and then let up in his fifth and sixth years, although he still did enough to meet Guard requirements. The records also suggest that Bush's superiors were not only happy with his performance from 1968 to 1972, but also happy with his decision to go to Alabama. Indeed, Bush's evaluating officer wrote in May 1972 that "Lt. Bush is very active in civic affairs in the community and manifests a deep interest in the operation of our government. He has recently accepted the position as campaign manager for a candidate for United States Senate. He is a good representative of the military and Air National Guard in the business world."
Quote:
Originally posted by mr_gyptian
Is this simple enough for you Dex???
Is this simple enough for you? He wasn't there for almost a year. Where was he? Do you know? 'Cause no one else does.
Let me know if I'm losing you with this somehow. According to Air Force officers, what's most disturbing is his refusal to take a physical--almost never done by an aviator.
Maybe you should lay off reading that partisan history 'story' and stick to real news.
Let's get him a few medals for protecting us from Mexico, while the less-privileged were fighting his daddy's war and dying in Viet Nam.Quote:
The F-102 was designed to shoot down other fighter planes, and the missions Bush flew were training flights, mostly over the Gulf of Mexico
Now here's something you should read that might help you out with this, from the Boston Globe:
Bush's loss of flying status should have spurred probe
By Walter V. Robinson and Francie Latour, Globe Staff, 2/12/2004
President Bush's August 1972 suspension from flight status in the Texas Air National Guard -- triggered by his failure to take a required annual flight physical -- should have prompted an investigation by his commander, a written acknowledgement by Bush, and perhaps a written report to senior Air Force officials, according to Air Force regulations in effect at the time.
Bush, who was a fighter-interceptor pilot assigned to the Texas Air National Guard, last flew in April 1972 -- just before the missed physical and 30 months before his flight commitment ended. He also did not attend National Guard training for several months that year and was permitted to cut short his military commitment a year later in 1973.
Late yesterday, assistant White House press secretary Erin Healy said the White House does not have records about the flight physical. "At this point, we've shared everything we have," Healy said. A spokesman for the National Guard Bureau said if there are records about any inquiry into Bush's flight status, they would most likely be in Bush's personnel file, stored in a military records facility in Colorado.
For military aviators, the annual flight physical is a line they must cross to retain coveted flying status. Flight surgeons who conduct the examinations have the power to remove pilots from flying duty.
The new questions about Bush's service arose a day after the White House disclosed attendance and payroll records that appeared to show that Bush sporadically attended Guard drills between May 1972 and May 1973 -- even though his superiors at the time said that Bush did not appear at their units in that period.
Two retired National Guard generals, in interviews yesterday, said they were surprised that Bush -- or any military pilot -- would forgo a required annual flight physical and take no apparent steps to rectify the problem and return to flying. "There is no excuse for that. Aviators just don't miss their flight physicals," said Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard, in an interview.
Brigadier General David L. McGinnis, a former top aide to the assistant secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, said in an interview that Bush's failure to remain on flying status amounts to a violation of the signed pledge by Bush that he would fly for at least five years after he completed flight school in November 1969.
"Failure to take your flight physical is like a failure to show up for duty. It is an obligation you can't blow off," McGinnis said.
Bush joined the Texas Air Guard in May 1968 after intercession by friends of his father, who was then a Houston congressman. He was quickly commissioned, spent a year in flight school in Georgia and then six months learning to fly an F-102 fighter-interceptor at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. From June 1970 until April 1972, he flew frequently.
His last flight physical was in May 1971.
The following April, just before his next physical was due, Bush moved temporarily to Alabama to work on a Republican US Senate race, and was given permission to attend Guard drills at a Montgomery Air Guard base. But he did not appear for his May 1972 physical, and he performed no duty at all until late October 1972, according to Guard records that became public this week.
A Sept. 29, 1972, order sent to Bush by the National Guard Bureau, the defense department agency which oversees the Guard, noted that Bush had been verbally suspended from flying on Aug. 1. The written order made it official: "Reason for suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical examination."
The order required Bush to acknowledge the suspension in writing and also said: "The local commander who has authority to convene a Flying Evaluation Board will direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination." After that, the commander had two options -- to convene the Evaluation Board to review Bush's suspension or forward a detailed report on his case up the chain of command.
Either way, officials said yesterday, there should have been a record of the investigation.
The issue of Bush's suspension has been clouded in mystery since it first arose during the 2000 campaign. Dan Bartlett, a Bush campaign aide who is now White House communications director, said then that Bush didn't take the physical because his family physician was in Houston and he was in Alabama. But the examination is supposed to be done by a flight surgeon, and could have been done at the base in Montgomery.
It is unclear whether Bush's commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, ordered any inquiry, as required.
McGinnis said he, too, thought it possible that Bush's superiors considered him a liability, so they decided "to get him off the books, make his father happy, and hope no one would notice."
But McGinnis said there should have been an investigation and a report. "If it didn't happen, that shows how far they were willing to stretch the rules to accommodate" then-Lieutenant Bush.
Ask them how the search for Whitey Bulger is going also.
you read about the point scoring system right?? he fulfilled it.
Call me crazy but was it daddy's war if GB Sr. was the ambassador to China at the time?